Bi"- T. HARVEY JOHNSTON AND M. J. BANCROFT. 239 



Our observations as well as our consideration of such. 

 evidence as we have been able to obtain from published 

 and other sources, have led us to agree with Mr. Pound's 

 criticisms in regard to Nos. 4, 8, 9, 10 (in part), 11 (in part), 

 12, (13, 14, 15, not considered in this paper though we agree 

 with Mr. Pound in regard to them), 16, in part only, 19, — 

 Nos. 23, 24, and 25 were not considered by us. 



We can readily unelerstand that most of the remainder 

 of Mr. Pound's findings would be correct, if only intense 

 artificial infestation be taken into account. We must 

 emphasise the fact that Mr. Hull claims that his cattle do 

 not mature ticks like other cattle under ordinary natural 

 infestation. 



We agree with Mr. Hull in regard to No. 1, 2, 3, provided 

 condition of cattle be maintained ; 5, as subsequently 

 modified ; 7, approximately correct ; 8 and 9, apparently 

 true in many cases ; 21, approximately correct. 



To sum up : Our observations have led u.s to the 

 conclusion that the animals which Mr. Hull has designated 

 as being resistant and which we have examined, do not 

 mature more than a comparatively few ticks per season 

 under conditions of natural infestation, and as a consequence 

 do not require any treatment to prevent tick worry. 



In subsequent official reports (1914, 1915, 1916) Pound 

 made further reference to the claims, his remarks and 

 observations being referred to later on in this paper when. 

 dealing with statements regarding various cows. (See 

 under Clover, Tinkerbell and their calves). The 1914 

 Report is the most important. In it Mr. Pound states 

 (p. 112) that the numerous experiments carried out at 

 Yeerongpilly prove conclusively that Mr. Hull's claim that 

 the tick-resisting peculiarity is transmitted by contact, 

 heredity or vaccination, is without foundation. 



Mr. Hull's dissatisfaction with the Departmental 

 findings (Par. Rept. 1914 ; Pound, 1914) led to the appoint- 

 ment of a Select Committee of the Queensland Legislative 

 Assembly, 1915, which examined amongst others, a number 

 of persons who had had some experience with Mr. Hull's 

 cattle. The evidence given proved conflicting and contra- 

 dictory and this led the Select Committee to recommend 



